I play this map every day, and I usually have 4-5 games going at once. Most of the time, I play triples, no spoils, with fog. I strongly oppose the idea of an objective-based win. What's wrong with playing a massive map and actually needing to conquer all the territories to win? I would probably never play this map 1v1, but I think it's an amazing team map. Please don't mess it up by adding an objective-based winning condition.

I wonder a little at the need for an objective. Going in, one must know this is a large map, and therefore may take a while to finish. Does it matter that much to take a few more turns to eliminate all opponents completely?

MrGlassB wrote:I play this map every day, and I usually have 4-5 games going at once. Most of the time, I play triples, no spoils, with fog. I strongly oppose the idea of an objective-based win. What's wrong with playing a massive map and actually needing to conquer all the territories to win? I would probably never play this map 1v1, but I think it's an amazing team map. Please don't mess it up by adding an objective-based winning condition.

MGB

I'm pretty sure the objective would only come into play in a standard game. As far as the xml goes, I'd think it would only count 1 player's territories, not a whole team's combined. Even in a 4 player doubles game, I don't think 1 player alone would be able to hold 250 territories.

Looking for a clan? Clickhereto send me a PM and find out how to join The Underworld! *Selective Recruitment*

I'm not a fan of the victory condition of holding X% of the map to win - on any map. All it does is allow a lazy player(s) to end their game(s) sooner. The tagline and motto of Conquer Club has always been to conquer the entire world, country, city, etc, NOT to conquer 66% of the world, country, city, etc. and be handed a victory.

For other objective maps, the players are always presented the choice of "kill all the other players, or hold these territories to win". This one is basically stating "kill 66% of the other players to win".

I personally like the tactics of the map and trying to work your borders slowly towards total victory, and waiting for the right opportunity to strike and cripple your opponent. With this, it bases even more luck on the cards and spreading your troops over a major landmass as opposed to stacking.

MrGlassB wrote:I play this map every day, and I usually have 4-5 games going at once. Most of the time, I play triples, no spoils, with fog. I strongly oppose the idea of an objective-based win. What's wrong with playing a massive map and actually needing to conquer all the territories to win? I would probably never play this map 1v1, but I think it's an amazing team map. Please don't mess it up by adding an objective-based winning condition.

MGB

I agree I like the map because it is so big and I need to conquer it all ... please do not spoil the fun!

I would rather see the win condition be holding the all of the storage cells. The middle storage cell (which I would change to the Queen Bee) would be able to attack the outer storage cells in a one way direction (the outer storage cells could not attack the queen or the other storage cells). This would keep the major battles in the middle of the map.

Just don't see how you can have a bee hive and not have the queen bee.

why not leave it it as-is. Sure one guy could hold a majority of the territories; but if he is facing multiple survivors and the game still has potential then the top dog can end the game by simply starting his turn...

If anything this should branch off into a brand new map option available to all maps just like spoils, reinforcements, fog of war, etc. This way you dont single out and ruin The Hive.

If it is illegal to grow cannabis then by man's law, God, creator of all plants is a criminal.

My opinion: Hive should stay as it is (no objective). Most of the good arguments have already been made. There are just too many variables in that map, especially with escalating cards, so having 66% is not a guarantee to win. Even if it were a given, the player should demonstrate significant strategy and game play in order to hold the lead and take it to a win.

---The Beta period has concluded for The Hive Map. All objections have had their time. The Foundry and I hereby brand this map with the Foundry Brand. Let it be known that this map is now ready to be released into live play.

Congratulations WidowMakers and killerpit4e, your shiny new medals are well-earned

Conquer Club, enjoy!

--MrBenn

PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that

---The Beta period has concluded for The Hive Map. All objections have had their time. The Foundry and I hereby brand this map with the Foundry Brand. Let it be known that this map is now ready to be released into live play.

Congratulations WidowMakers and killerpit4e, your shiny new medals are well-earned

very nice map... I remember it was sometime like last summer when my wife played CC still, you guys sent her some spam pm on whether she would like to see this map or not... we both looked at it and got a chuckle. The laugh is on me now, because this is a pretty epic groundbreaking map.

winning with 66% of the board would seam like a hollow victory. plus if players are in a standoff with most of there troops on each others boarders all you have to do is break one boarder and you can run through there back teritories and you have won! play the game out especially if its escalating cards. maybe make 66% an option.